Dana Jo Stricklin v. Jerone Trent Stricklin
2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 754
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mother filed for divorce in Hardin County in 2009; final decree in 2009 incorporated a permanent parenting plan.
- Original plan gave Mother 215 days of parenting time; Father had visiting rights on his days off.
- In 2013 Mother moved to modify the permanent parenting plan and child support; hearing set for April 21, 2014.
- At the April 21 hearing, after a recess, the parties announced in open court that they had agreed to a new parenting plan; terms detailed by Mother’s counsel with Father’s counsel agreeing.
- The trial court memorialized the agreement on June 3, 2014 in an order that adopted an accompanying parenting plan not signed by either party.
- Father later moved to alter or amend the June 3 order; trial court denied the motion; this appeal followed seeking vacatur/remand for best-interests findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether modification was properly initiated by motion rather than petition | Stricklin asserts lack of petition; argues procedure incorrect | Stricklin contends petition requirement should be treated as complaint for Rule 3 purposes | We reject error; formality did not defeat jurisdiction or consented modification |
| Whether the June 3, 2014 order should be vacated for lack of best-interests findings | Father contends no consent, and no best-interests findings in order | Mother argues consent established in open court; best-interests findings not expressly required in contested form, but need not be shown when parties agree | Remand required for explicit best-interests findings and appropriate hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbour v. Brown for Ulrich, 732 S.W.2d 598 (Tenn. 1987) (consent required for entry of a judgment by consent; can enforce if agreed in open court)
- Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp., 27 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (oral agreement made in open court can be binding if recorded and sanctioned)
- Caldwell v. Hill, 250 S.W.3d 865 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (material change in circumstances central to modification, especially when contested)
- In re C.W., 420 S.W.3d 13 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (court must consider the child's best interests; cannot delegate sole determination to parties)
- Tuetken v. Tuetken, 320 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2010) (court retains duty to protect children's best interests; cannot bind court by agreement)